runner struck by thrown ball

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "On a force play a runner hit by a throw between the bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or run well away from the fielder making the throw." How is that not clear enough for you?

It's clear, Luke. But, does it (still) apply? Where did Brad make that quote?Does 2006 Situation 19 supercede whatever Brad said, or does it "change" it so that a runner who is less than 1/2 way to second is not guilty of interference while a runner who is more than 1/2 way is guilty?

(These types of questions apply to many of the Fed's attempts to clarify / change / supercede rulings.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "On a force play a runner hit by a throw between the bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or run well away from the fielder making the throw." How is that not clear enough for you?

Well, I like what Carl Childress wrote about Rumble's interpretation:

"The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves and important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference? I repeat my recommendations from the last few editions: Let umpire judgment carry the day. If the runner is "close" and has time to avoid the throw (get down or run away), then it's interference. Otherwise, E4. After all, plays like that are why they hire umpires. I hasten to point out that Rumbles's ruling from 1998 has had six years to make its way into the casebook -- without success."

Now it is seven years, BTW, as this is from the 2005 BRD.

[SanDiegoSteve]

PWL,

That is why Carl said "let umpire judgment carry the day." We are supposed to be able to make that distinction.

[BlueLawyer]

Originally Posted by PWL

With wording like this, the fielder knowing he doesn't have a play at first, might as well take aim at the runner.

Dude- I've been saying this all along. See the above posts.

Ruling that any runner who doesn't get down 6 feet from 2nd, 10 feet from 2nd, halfway, etc., etc., is AUTOMATICALLY guilty of interference is very, very dangerous territory in my view. The defense has every incentive to plunk the guy every single time. The FPSR is not designed (a) to endanger the runner or (b) give the defense a cheap double play. Carl's right. You can refuse to reward the defense for bad play while STILL enforcing the FPSR and protecting the defense's right to try to turn a legitimate double play if you exercise judgment and common sense.

Strikes and outs!

[SAump]

Any runner within 6-10 feet of the bag has obviously chose NOT to slide. The baserunner who elects NOT to slide has basically given himself UP at the SAC in order to break up a possible double play. His only remaining object is to force or alter the direction of the throw to first base by standing straight UP in the pathway. Errant throw aside, is a leading baserunner on a possible double play ball allowed to run straight into a base without sliding?

Basemen who must contend with a runner who slides hard in an attempt to break up a double play are NOT protected past the back edge of the bag. Most pivot men are taught to release the ball at a height that would force the runner to slide early as a measure of safety or self-preservation. A second baseman may react differently to grown adult running straight UP at full speed in his direction. Perhaps this fear of hitting a grown man between the eyes is cause of errant throw from the pivot man into the baserunner's thigh. Are basemen protected from runners who refuse to slide?

If you don't call it interference, then you will begin to see more and more "heavy" baserunners do the same thing, that is refuse to slide and run in straight UP. If it wasn't interference, then we would definitely have more of these situation occur daily. I would call it intereference based on the fact that it doesn't occur in this regard as often as predicted. The nature of the act is simply INTERFERENCE.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Dude- I've been saying this all along. See the above posts.

Ruling that any runner who doesn't get down 6 feet from 2nd, 10 feet from 2nd, halfway, etc., etc., is AUTOMATICALLY guilty of interference is very, very dangerous territory in my view. The defense has every incentive to plunk the guy every single time. The FPSR is not designed (a) to endanger the runner or (b) give the defense a cheap double play. Carl's right. You can refuse to reward the defense for bad play while STILL enforcing the FPSR and protecting the defense's right to try to turn a legitimate double play if you exercise judgment and common sense.

Strikes and outs!

It isn't dangerous territory close to the base. I don't know how you and SDS think that runners should not be sliding when they are 10 feet from the base. SDS even went so far as to say a runner who starts sliding 6 feet from the base will not reach the base. I understand that saying the runner must slide if he is X feet from the base is a tough thing to do, but we all know when the runner is close enough to the base to slide. If the runner is close enough to slide, but is not sliding or avoiding the play he is intentionally trying to obstruct the play in some way. Runners aren't stupid, they know they have to slide. They don't go in standing up for no reason.

Calling interference is not encouraging the fielder to throw at the runner in any way. How often do you see runners going in standing up anyways? When the occasional runner goes in standing up, call the interference and no runner on that team will ever going in standing up again. But not calling it encourages the runner to go in standing up. They will realize that they can gain an advantage by either deflecting the throw or forcing the fielder to throw around them. Eventually the one of the fielders will get pissed off and throw the ball right into the runner's face.

[SAump]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB
NAIA uses the OBR with modifications.

bingo.
http://naia.cstv.com/member-services...bbrulemod1.htm (it says its from 2004 but i cant find anything on the web that differs)

Posted earlier by Brian Curtin on another thread
----------------------

7.09 A. A runner must slide or move in a direction away from the play in a force play situation at all bases, including home plate.

If the fielder, in his attempt, is moving DIRECTLY down the line between the two bases and proper contact is made, interference shall not be called.

Contact is allowable if the runner is on the ground at the time. The runner may not use a rolling, cross-body block or pop-up slide, go over or beyond the base or slash or kick the fielder with either leg; the raised leg must be no higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position. "On the ground" can be either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and buttock on the ground.

NOTE: A base runner need not slide directly into a base as long as he slide in direction AWAY from the infielder attempting to make a play.

On force plays, coaches are urged to teach their players to avoid contact and slide directly into the base as if they were being forced out as the third out of an inning.

On a force play, with a two-man umpiring system, if the plate umpire does not have a potential play at the plate, he should move toward the base to observe the runner going into second or third base. In this situation, the base umpire must follow the throw and may not see the true effect of the lead runner's action. (The plate umpire should call interference if he sees that the runner's action causes the fielder to change his pattern of play, which prevents a throw or an attempt to complete a double play.)

If the runner's action (sliding, running) is flagrant, he shall be ejected from the game.

If the batter-runner intentionally interferes with his batted ball or the fielder fielding it, with a double play obvious, the umpire shall rule the batter-runner out and also the runner closest to home plate, regardless of where the double play may have taken place.

[DG]

It's been real interesting, and I have been waiting to weigh in on the obvious. First, I will say that I would not call FPSR on a runner 6-10 feet from the bag. I played SS and 2B when I was youngster and a runner 6-10 feet from the bag is not in my way on a throw to 1B. Any decent middle infielder can make a slight adjustment to throw by him. But the obvious is that the higher you go, the more likely the SS will not give a sh*t whether you get down or not. Do you ever see a major league runner in this situation, no, because they will get beaned and they know it.

[SAump]

I agree with that narrow alley part, PWL. I never seen the bottom sitch you describe on an infield force play. I agree it usually happens alot when a slide and swipe tag is required on a very close play from the outfield. I have never seen it when the ball beats the runner, in either case. I suppose if I was convince the fielder miffed the transfer, then interference would be harder to justify.

I once saw a tall baserunner take one to the teeth from F6 to F3. Baserunner wasn't close enough to slide or fast enough to duck. The HS ruling, FPSR interference and double play. A sub entered the game in his place and his team lossed to CC MOODY. I would think the tactic backfired and he wouldn't be trying it a second time. No argument from OC coach. Corpus Christy Moody is a TX HS baseball powerhouse year after year.

{edited to please SDS and to correct misuse of BR}

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by DG

First, I will say that I would not call FPSR on a runner 6-10 feet from the bag. I played SS and 2B when I was youngster and a runner 6-10 feet from the bag is not in my way on a throw to 1B. Any decent middle infielder can make a slight adjustment to throw by him.

Sometimes on the internet people have posted about how they think it is funny when the first base coach tells Johnny to break up the double play because there is no legal way to break up a double play. So what if that slight adjustment slowed down the fielder just enough that the BR was safe at first? If you are allowing runners to intentionally get hit by throws (if you ingore it long enough, coaches will begin teaching their runners to go in standing up) and alter the throws of fielders by going in standing up you are letting the offense break up the double play.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by PWL

With all the protection they have, the fielders should be able to move to create a throwing lane.

So the runner should be able to make the fielder step to the side to create a throwing lane? That step to the side could be the difference between the BR being out or safe. I don't see how there is any debate over this play as the runner did not slide an obviously altered the play of the fielder.

Originally Posted by PWL

Ever notice how they duck or seem to run the opposite way.

That is what I have been saying all along. The runner should either get on the ground or get out of the way.

[David B]

Originally Posted by LDUB

So the runner should be able to make the fielder step to the side to create a throwing lane? That step to the side could be the difference between the BR being out or safe. I don't see how there is any debate over this play as the runner did not slide an obviously altered the play of the fielder.



That is what I have been saying all along. The runner should either get on the ground or get out of the way.

Teams that play good baseball don't have these problems as F6 and F4 are taught the proper fundamentals of taking the turn over second etc., on the double play ball.

However, unless there is obvious interference with the play, its going to be a stretch to call a FPSR in FED ball by an umpire saying it looked like he interfered with the play, or I thought he interfered with the throw.

I don't have the quote with me, but Carl had a great article a while back on the FPSR. R1 slides legally but hard into F4 making the turn on the DP. Coach, "that's interference". Umpire, "quit playing freshmen in the infield"

thanks
David

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by David B

Teams that play good baseball don't have these problems as F6 and F4 are taught the proper fundamentals of taking the turn over second etc., on the double play ball.

I beg to differ.
Good middle infielders are taught not to adjust their throw to avoid a runner.
All they need to do is put one hard one between the eyes of an interfering runner and they won't have to worry about making "adjustments" ever again playing that team.

Originally Posted by David B

However, unless there is obvious interference with the play, its going to be a stretch to call a FPSR in FED ball by an umpire saying it looked like he interfered with the play, or I thought he interfered with the throw.

I believe FPSR is for the safety of both runner and fielder. If so, it is easy to interpret the language of the rule to mean the runner needs to get out of the way. Do you really believe Fed intended to leave a loophole allowing the runner to legally get one upside the head?
For me, it's not a stretch to interpret and enforce a rule that encourages a runner to do what every major leaguer does, get the heck out of the way and prevent brain damage.
When I was in HS and College I was young and stupid and sometimes pi##ed off at the other team. There's nothing I would've liked better than to have a free shot at a runner. Until Fed. says different I have to believe they are trying to avoid the free shot.

Originally Posted by David B

I don't have the quote with me, but Carl had a great article a while back on the FPSR. R1 slides legally but hard into F4 making the turn on the DP. Coach, "that's interference". Umpire, "quit playing freshmen in the infield"

thanks
David

The only way R1 can slide hard 'into' F4 is if F4 is on the first base side of the bag, in which case he is on his own. Anywhere else, if R1 is sliding hard into him I've got interference and quite possibly sending R1 home to do his chores.

[johnnyg08]

basically the rule is slide or avoid. to be honest, from a former middle infielder's perspective, I'd like to try to turn the dang double play instead of depending on the umpire to make a tough call. especially in High School, that's what you're going to see...this is a pretty tough call to make because there's a wide open gray area for us umpires to use when making the decision...granted the slam dunk calls can be made by anybody...but lots of coaches simply don't know the rules. Bottom line...that's why this thread is so long...because there isn't a black and white answer here...this is a judgement call that absolutely needs to be sold by the umpire.

Many of you are talking about a flippin' 6 foot rule...what are you going to do...get a tape measure out on the field and realize that when it measures out to 6' 1" that not it's not interference??? C'mon...none of us would do that...99% of your runners will simply give themselves up by running into the infield grass unless it's going to be a banger at second or something like that...this isn't that tough of a call, unless you keep thinking about it...Sell whatever call you decide to make...there is not a Black or White answer here.

Have a great weekend,
Umpire John

[UmpJM]

DG,

Other than your 2nd sentence, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say in your post.

However, if the game is being played under a code with the FPSR (let's say FED, for example) your ruling would be wrong - as in incorrect; i.e., a misapplication of the rules. Your judgement that the pivot man should have been able to avoid the runner (which, in the general case, I happen to agree with) is completely irrelevant to the proper call on the play.

Because, under the FED FPSR rule, it is, both by rule and official interpretation, interference. The FED FPSR rule dramatically changes the "balance of the game" in favor of the defense.

If the runner is forced, he must either:

1. Slide legally directly to the bag

or

2. Run in a direction away from the fielder

If he fails to do so and "alters the play" (or contacts the fielder), he has, by rule, interfered. Both he and the BR are out. Any other runners return to their TOP base. That's what the rule says, and that's what the case play and interpretation say. There is no interpretation that says otherwise.

There is a degree of ambiguity in the rule and the case play. Specifically, there is no specific criteria regarding how close the runner must be to his "forced to" base for the FPSR to be in effect. The case play suggests that if the runner is "less than halfway", he is not subject to the FPSR.

This is what Carl C. said in one of a series of articles on the subject on 12/1703: (if you're a paid subscriber, you can read itself here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3524)

...Play 11: The ball is smashed on one hop to F6, who flips to second. The throw to first nails R1 in the helmet. He is perhaps thirty feet from second when he is hit. ...

The Answers

...11. Ruling: Double play.

Comment: The priest would assign at least 10 Hail Mary’s as penance for your language. But the play is based on a Rumble ruling in the FED News, #1, March 1998. (You’ll recall that was the year he restructured the Force-Play-Slide Rule at 8-4-2b, c, and d. It’s clear he was up on what the Committee wanted.) ...

Dave Emerling also wrote a (profusely illustrated) series on the subject which can be found here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4225 .

As described, the original play is almost certainly a violation by the R1 of the FPSR. I say it that way, because I didn't see the play. The pivot man may have "gone out of his way" to intentionally hit the R1 with the throw, rather than legitimately trying to complete the DP. The "slow" R1 may have been initiating a legal slide when the throw hit him. But, as presented, it's a violation. So, there are certainly elements of judgement, but whether or not the pivot man "should have" been able to throw around the runner ain't one of them.

Some have suggested that the rule only protects the "safety" of the pivot man - not that of the runner. Balderdash! The safety of both is afforded equal protection.

Others have suggested that it is only the force at the "forced to" base that is contemplated. That is utter nonsense. If that were true, the penalty would not be an "automatic" double play, it would simply be the forced runner being called out.

LDUB and a couple of others seem to understand this. Many others seem to "not like" the rule and feel they can ignore it if they judge that the pivot man should have been able to complete the throw. I'm not particularly fond of the significant shift in the balance of the game in favor of the defense created by this rule either, but it IS a rule.

If I teach my players to comply with this rule, my opponent does not, and you, as umpires, choose to ignore it, you have given my opponent an unfair advantage.

I challenge any of you to provide a credible rule reference, case play, or interpretation that says I misconstrue how the rule should be applied. If you can, I'm all ears (eyes?), because I don't particularly like the rule either. I don't think one exists. Yet.

JM